TEAM CODE:

COMPETITION COMMISSION OF INDIA

Case No. XXX of 2024

1. Push Up Kabila … (Informant 1)

2. Soyi Thing … (Informant 2)

Vs.

Fitness Freak … (Opposite Party)

Coram
1.
2.

MEMORIAL FOR OPPOSITE PARTY

0|Page
 INDEX

INDEX........................................................................................................................................................1
ABBREVIATIONS....................................................................................................................................2
INDEX OF AUTHORITIES.....................................................................................................................3
STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION........................................................................................................4
STATEMENT OF FACTS........................................................................................................................5
ISSUES.......................................................................................................................................................8
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS...............................................................................................................9
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED..................................................................................................................10
PRAYER..................................................................................................................................................16

1|Page
 ABBREVIATIONS

1. & - And
2.AIR - All India Reporter
3.Anr - Another
4.No. - Number
5.SC - Supreme Court
6.v. - Versus
7.SCC - Supreme Court Cases
8.CCI. – Competition Commission of India

2|Page
 INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

STATUTES
The Competition Act 2002

CASE LAWS
1. Rohit Arora v. Zomato (P.) Ltd. Case No. 54 of 2020
2. CCI v. Bharti Airtel Ltd. & Ors. Civil Appeal No(S). 11843 of 2018 (Arising Out of SLP (C)
No. 35574 of 2017)
3. Mahindra Shubhla Motors Ltd. vs. Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd. on 30 August, 2012
4. CCI vs. Indian Medical Association & Ors. AIRONLINE 2019 SC 873
5. JSW Paints Private Limited vs Asian Paints Limited Case No. 36 of 2019
6. Matrimony.com Ltd. v. Google LLC & Ors. Case Nos. 07 and 30 of 2012
7. Harshita Chawla v Whatsapp Inc. & Anr. Case No. 15 of 2020
8. Central Inland Water Transport Corporation Ltd. & Anr. vs Brojo Nath Ganguly & Anr [1986
AIR 1571]
9. Confederation of Real Estate Developers’ Associations of India (CREDAI) v. Competition
Commission of India & Anr. 2012
11. Google LLC v. Competition Commission of India & Ors. (2020), Case No, 19/2020.
12. Competition Commission of India vs. All India Brewers Association & Ors Suo Motu Case
No. 06 of 2017

3|Page
 STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

THE COMPLAINANT HUMBLY SUBMITS TO THE JURISDICTION OF THE

COMPETITION COMMISSION OF INDIA UNDER SECTION 19 OF THE COMPETITION
ACT, 2002.

19. Inquiry into certain agreements and dominant position of enterprise

(1) The Commission may inquire into any alleged contravention of the provisions contained in
subsection (1) of section 3 or sub-section (1) of section 4 either on its motion or on—
(a) 29[receipt of any information, in such manner and] accompanied by such fee as may be
determined by regulations, from any person, consumer, or their association or trade association;
or
(b) a reference made to it by the Central Government or a State Government or a statutory
authority.

4|Page
 STATEMENT OF FACTS

1. The company Fitness Freak Private Limited, also known as "Fitness Freak," was
incorporated in India. Fitness Freak has developed a digital fitness guide known as "The Digital
Personal Trainer," or "The Digital PT," which is a 56-inch vertical screen with built-in LIDAR
depth sensors and a high-resolution camera.
2. Through this hardware as well as its algorithms, Fitness Freak Can Profile its users for data
such as height, weight, BMI, muscle mass, and fat percentage, track the users’ movements
during a workout, and provide interactive feedback on the users’ form for each exercise; and also
track repetitions for each exercise.

3. For users to follow along with and regularly work out, the Digital PT offers a wide variety of
interactive content (such as yoga, weightlifting, calisthenics, high-intensity interval training,
etc.). Unlike other fitness applications that only recommend specific exercises, Digital PT offers
real-time feedback and form guidance to its users. Smaller gyms also use the Digital PT.
4. over six months, it has been observed that the use of Digital PT has increased the adoption of
exercise as a habit, going from two to three days per week to five to six days per week. Of
course, people watch fitness content uploaded on Fitness Freak's platform (workout videos) more
often than they do on other platforms. In just three years, Fitness Freak's Digital PT has risen to
the top of the fitness equipment market and altered consumer behavior, leading many regular
gym goers to begin using the device to work out in the comfort of their own homes.
5. The following represents an approximation of the monthly number of individuals who use
Digital PT and visit different gyms in India:
S. No. Name of fitness brand Number of Users
1. Bold’s Gym 12,80,000
2. All-time Gym 8,00,020
3. Brutal Fit 7,10,000
4. Various miscellaneous single outlet gyms 3,50,000
and at-home personal trainers
5. Fitness Freak “The Digital PT” 15,30,5001
6. Various fitness content creators on Vizeo 5,15,000
7. Couch-to-Fit, Fitness App 79,000

6. Fitness content creators began contacting Fitness Freak as a result of this popularity,
expressing interest in having their videos uploaded on Fitness Freak's Digital PT interface. The
company Fitness Freak is committed to keeping a careful eye on the caliber of the videos that are

5|Page
uploaded to its platform. Given that many of the content creators are social media influencers
and stars, it conducts a consumer survey and finds that a resounding majority of respondents’
support allowing a variety of third-party video content creators.
7. As a result, Fitness Freak decides that it will allow third-party video creators to provide
content. Fitness Freak puts out a social media post announcing that it will allow third-party video
content creators to upload content to its platform, subject to the following conditions that the
videos will be created, exclusively for Fitness Freak (the clauses vaguely seem to suggest that the
content cannot be uploaded to any other platform); and that the videos will conform with the
quality guidelines of Fitness Freak which make it compliant with the movement tracking
technology.

8. Several fitness influencers, such as Bruce & Zoya, Soyi Thing, and Push-up Kabila, begin
producing original video content and posting it to Fitness Freak's platform during the next two
months. Fitness Freak also takes advantage of this to aggressively market its Digital PT by
enlisting the help of the different influencers it has recruited. As seen by the market shares
above, this causes the consumer base to nearly double in just two years.
9. At this point, Fitness Freak is beginning to draw interest from investors worldwide. Two years
later, in July 2022, Fitness Freak receives funding from Oceania-based Sharkania Inc., a private
equity firm that specializes in digital ventures, for which it owns 20% of the company. Sharkania
Inc. also receives the authority to select two of Fitness Freak's eight directors as part of the
investment. The Competition Act of India states that Sharkania Inc.'s investment in Fitness Freak
exceeds notifiability thresholds. The Competition Commission of India ("CCI") is notified of the
investment. The CCI approves the notification shortly after and states that there is unlikely to be
any AAEC in any relevant market as a result of the transaction.
10. Sharkania Inc. also held a minority stake in Eato Keto, a recently launched healthy food
delivery company, along with a nominee director. The nominee director of Sharkania Inc. moves
a motion to require Eato Keto to be installed on all Digital PT devices (through a back-end
software update) following the completion of the investment in Fitness Freak. Sharkania Inc.
proposes that Eato Keto and the Digital PT have business synergies in which Eato Keto uses the
extensive data from the Digital PT to offer timely meal recommendations based on factors like
body fat percentage, muscle mass, fitness objectives, time of day, etc. Following some
discussion, all parties involved in Fitness Freak and Eato Keto agreed to this idea.

11. Eato Keto is installed on all Digital PT devices via a software update. Fitness Freak shares
real-time consumer data with Eato Keto so that Eato Keto can give users accurate meal
recommendations. Users of Digital PT find the feature to be very helpful, and Eato Keto gets a
lot of business—its user base and revenue are growing every month. Customer satisfaction is
high, and many have expressed their gratitude for the integration on social media.
12. To draw in more users, Fitness Freak's advisors and directors from Sharkania Inc.
recommend that the platform exclusively host and promote quick-fix exercise formats like video
content. Therefore, even though these videos are some of the most viewed by users, certain types
of exercise like yoga, acrobatics, pilates, etc., should not be allowed on the platform.

6|Page
13. Over the next few months, Fitness Freak willfully deletes every video of a select few
workouts that were created specifically for Fitness Freak. Bruce and Zoya, who train primarily in
calisthenics, do not object to this. To prevent the removal of their videos, Push-up Kabila and
Soyi Thing write to Fitness Freak in protest. They make public on social media that the videos
they made specifically for Fitness Freak had a strong emotional bond with their audience. Some
of their best and most popular video content was removed from the platform, which resulted in
an irreversible loss of viewership. Their protest and letter, though, have no impact.
14. Push-ups Kabila and Soyi Thing file a complaint with the CCI, claiming that it is anti-
competitive and has caused irreversible harm to remove the video content from the Fitness Freak
platform without conditions. In their material, they also contest Fitness Freak's disproportionate
and irrational data gathering, processing, and dissemination to offer customized advice for
Sharkania Inc.'s invested business, Eato Keto. They specifically claim that it was an abuse of
dominance on the part of Fitness Freak that they did not obtain the users' consent before
disclosing the data to Eato Keto.

7|Page
 ISSUES

ISSUE I. Whether pre-loading of Eato Keto on the Fitness Freak device interface amounts to
anti-competitive conduct under the Indian Competition Act?

ISSUE II. Whether the sharing of data, without taking the users’ consent, amounts to an abuse of
dominance?

ISSUE III. Whether unilateral removal of exclusive video content by Fitness Freak amount to a
violation of the Indian Competition Act?

ISSUE IV. Whether the act of Fitness Freak violate any provisions of the Indian Competition
Act?

8|Page
 SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS

ISSUE I. Whether pre-loading of Eato Keto on the Fitness Freak device interface amounts
to anti-competitive conduct under the Indian Competition Act?

the pre-loading of Eato Keto on The Fitness Freak device interface does not amount to anti-
competitive conduct under the Indian Competition Act, as it offers consumer benefits, absence of
exclusivity clauses, synergistic collaboration.

ISSUE II. Whether the sharing of data, without taking the users’ consent, amounts to an
abuse of dominance?

Fitness Freak’s sharing of data without explicit user consent does not constitute an abuse of
dominance under the Competition Act 2002 due to factors such as the absence of dominance,
efficiency and innovation, consumer choice, and industry standards

ISSUE III. Whether unilateral removal of exclusive video content by Fitness Freak amount
to a violation of the Indian Competition Act?

The Competition Act does not prohibit businesses from making unilateral decisions to improve
the quality of their products or services, as long as such decisions do not result in anti-
competitive effects. the removal of certain videos was a business decision made to maintain the
quality and focus of its platform. By allowing only certain types of exercise videos that align
with its strategy, Fitness Freak aims to enhance user experience and satisfaction.

ISSUE IV. Whether the act of Fitness Freak violate any provisions of the Indian
Competition Act?

Fitness Freak's conduct does not violate any provisions of the Indian Competition Act. By
leveraging data to offer personalized recommendations, Fitness Freak enhances the value
proposition of its product, thereby benefiting consumers. The integration of third-party video
content creators onto Fitness Freak's platform provides consumers with a wider variety of
workout options and expertise, and Fitness Freak's actions do not restrict competition or harm
consumers.

9|Page
 ARGUMENTS ADVANCED

ISSUE I. Whether pre-loading of Eato Keto on the Fitness Freak device interface amounts
to anti-competitive conduct under the Indian Competition Act?

The counsel on behalf of the opponent party would like to state that the pre-loading of Eato Keto
on the Fitness Freak device interface does not amount to anti-competitive conduct under the
Indian Competition Act 2002.

Section 19(3) of the Competition Act, 2002, recognizes that conduct resulting in the
improvement of production or distribution of goods or provision of services can be exempted
from anti-competitive scrutiny if it benefits consumers. The integration of Eato Keto falls under
this exemption. The integration of Eato Keto on the Fitness Freak device interface enhances the
consumer experience by providing personalized food recommendations based on fitness data
collected by Digital PT.

1.1. Synergies and Interoperability

The integration of Eato Keto on the Fitness Freak device interface is based on synergies between
the two businesses, leveraging fitness data to provide relevant food recommendations. This
interoperability enhances the value proposition of both services without foreclosing competition.
The Competition Commission of India (CCI) has recognized synergistic collaborations as pro-
competitive under Section 3(5) of the Competition Act, provided they do not result in an
appreciable adverse effect on competition (AAEC).
In the case of Rohit Arora v. Zomato (P.) Ltd. 1 Zomato, and Swiggy, were competing
with each other in the same segment on various parameters, prima facie Zomato did
not appear to hold a dominant position and complaints of abuse of dominance and
bundling/tying of food ordering services with food delivery services were to be
dismissed.

The Informant alleged that Zomato abused its dominant position by raising food delivery charges
and by charging unfair, discriminatory, and exorbitant delivery charges from its consumers. It
was further alleged that Zomato vertically restrained restaurants from delivering food themselves
and is restricting food delivery from unfavoured restaurants by not assigning delivery executives.

The Commission observed that the Informant had delineated two separate relevant markets as
online food ordering services provided by food aggregator apps in India and food delivery
services in India, which Zomato had disputed. Based on the facts and circumstances of the case,
the Commission believed that there exists no prima facie case of contravention of the provisions

1
1. Rohit Arora v. Zomato (P.) Ltd. Case No. 54 of 2020

10 | P a g e
of the Act against the OP, and the Information filed is directed to be closed forthwith under
Section 26(2) of the Act.
In the case of CCI v. Bharti Airtel Ltd. & Ors. 2(2019), the CCI considered the bundling of
services by telecom operators and held that while certain bundling practices may have anti-
competitive effects, they can also result in efficiencies and consumer benefits.

Mahindra Shubhla Motors Ltd. vs. Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd3: This case emphasizes that
integration of services can be pro-competitive if it offers efficiencies and benefits to consumers.

1.2. Lack of Dominance in Relevant Market

The relevant product market can narrowly be defined here as a Digital Fitness App and does not
fall under the broader Market of Fitness and cannot be compared with the users of physical
gyms. Stating that Fitness Freak dominates its relevant market because it has more monthly users
(15,30,5001) than other gyms with the closest competitor having a monthly user base of
(12,80,000) is grossly negligent as the relevant market for both the products are very different.

In the case of CCI vs. Indian Medical Association & Ors. 4(2019): This case highlights that
dominance must be assessed in the relevant market, not a broader market. Here, the relevant
market might be narrowly defined as explained above.

In the case of JSW Paints Private Limited vs Asian Paints Limited5, In the present instance,
JSW Paints (P.) Ltd. filed an information under section 19(1)(a), alleging violations of sections
3(4) and 4 of the Competition Act, 2002, against Asian Paints Limited.
JSW Paints is part of the JSW group of companies, which is engaged in several sectors,
including steel, energy, cement, etc. JSW Paints was incorporated in the year 2016 and launched
its decorative paints in May 2019 in Bengaluru and Hubli in Karnataka.
Asian Paints is a listed company and is primarily engaged in the manufacture and sale of
decorative and industrial paints According to its Annual Report for FY 2018–19, it is the third
largest paint company in Asia and the largest in India. It has eight manufacturing plants for
decorative paints and two for industrial paints in India.
The Commission noted that Asian Paints prima facie appeared to enjoy a dominant position in
the relevant market for the “manufacture and sale of decorative paints by the organized sector in
India”
The DG noted that, as per the data published by CMIE, Asian Paints had the highest market
share, of 38.99% in 2019–20, with Berger Paints as the second-placed manufacturer, at 12.98%.
Historically, the market share of Asian Paints is around three times its closest competitor in the
relevant market. The DG also noted that the market share of an enterprise is an indicator of
market power, but the determination of a dominant position merely based on the market share of
2
. CCI v. Bharti Airtel Ltd. & Ors. Civil Appeal No(S). 11843 of 2018 (Arising Out of SLP (C) No. 35574 of 2017)
3
Mahindra Shubhla Motors Ltd. vs. Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd. (2013):
4
CCI vs. Indian Medical Association & Ors. AIRONLINE 2019 SC 873
5
JSW Paints Private Limited vs Asian Paints Limited Case No. 36 of 2019

11 | P a g e
the enterprise could be misleading. To assess the conduct of Asian Paints under the provisions of
Section 4 of the Act, a relevant market needs to be delineated first, followed by an assessment of
Asian Paints’ position in the said relevant market and then the alleged abusive conduct. The
Commission observes that decorative paints and industrial paints are distinct market categories
because of the clear differences in their traits, intended applications, and prices. Additionally,
due to many factors including brand reputation, disparity in pricing, quality, etc.

The CCI concluded that, in the absence of any hard evidence, Asian Paints cannot be held
responsible because it appears that there were some inter se disputes between JSW Paints and the
owner of the warehouse facility. Therefore, the data on file does not support the claim that
infrastructure facilities were denied.

Therefore, the council would like to state that pre-loading of Eato Keto on the Fitness Freak
device does not amount to anti-competitive conduct.

ISSUE II. Whether the sharing of data, without taking the users’ consent, amounts to an
abuse of dominance?

Fitness Freak does not hold a dominant position in the relevant market. A dominant position
typically implies the ability to operate independently of competitive forces or affect competitors,
customers, and the market. If Fitness Freak does not possess such dominance, its actions may not
fall under the purview of abuse of dominance provisions.

2.1. Exclusivity & Innovation

Section 19(3) of the Competition Act exempts conduct resulting in the improvement of
production or distribution of goods or provision of services from anti-competitive scrutiny if it
benefits consumers. Fitness Freak sharing data with Eato Keto without explicit consent
contributes to innovation and efficiency in service provision. The data enables Eato Keto to
provide personalized food recommendations, thereby enhancing consumer welfare.

The counsel on behalf of Fitness Freak would like to highlight industry practices where data
sharing for personalized services is commonplace and beneficial to consumers. In the case of
Matrimony.com Ltd. v. Google LLC & Ors. 6, the CCI recognized the benefits of data sharing
in the context of online matchmaking services.

Fitness Freak also asserts that users are not locked into using Eato Keto's services exclusively
and can opt out or choose alternative food recommendation services. This ensures consumer
choice and prevents the foreclosure of competition. The absence of exclusivity clauses aligns
with Section 3(4) of the Competition Act, which prohibits agreements that directly or indirectly
impose unfair or discriminatory conditions.

CCI found Whatsapp to be dominant in the relevant market of ‘Over the top (OTT) messaging
apps through smartphones in India’ as previously observed in the case of Harshita Chawla v
6
Matrimony.com Ltd. v. Google LLC & Ors. Case Nos. 07 and 30 of 2012

12 | P a g e
Whatsapp Inc. & Anr. 7CCI noted that the users are not provided with an appropriate
granular/voluntary choice to object or rather opt-out of data sharing, unlike the 2016 Whatsapp
privacy policy update. CCI concluded that such a “take-it-or-leave-it” policy amounts to an
abuse of dominant position and is prima-facie in violation of section 4(2)(a)(i) of the Act which
refers to the imposition of unfair terms and conditions. Later, in the Harshit Chawla case, the
integration of Whatsapp Pay, a digital payment application into Whatsapp’s messenger service
led to an allegation of abuse of dominance. Again, the fact that the user must undertake a
voluntary registration process to use the feature and that the users had the discretion to utilise the
service was an important contention considered by CCI to hold in favour of Whatsapp. CCI
concluded that unless there is an explicit or implicit imposition by Whatsapp taking away the
discretion of users, section 4(2)(a)(i) of the Act will not be contravened.

The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Central Inland Water Transport Corporation Ltd. & Anr. vs
Brojo Nath Ganguly & Anr 8[1986 AIR 1571] emphasized the requirement of ‘reasonableness’
in the terms of the contract and discussed the doctrine of ‘unconscionability’ where unequal
bargaining power is a major factor in the imposition of unfair terms in the contract. The Hon’ble
Supreme Court had also observed that if such a weaker party has no meaningful choice but to
give his assent to a contract (or to accept a set of rules as part of the contract), however unfair,
unreasonable, and unconscionable they may be, the courts will strike down such unfair and
unreasonable contract. This reasoning by the Supreme Court essentially translates to the test of
‘user-choice’ as applied by CCI in competition law cases to determine abuse of dominant cases
with respect to the imposition of unfair terms and conditions on users.

The absence of exclusivity clauses aligns with Section 3(4) of the Competition Act, which
prohibits agreements that directly or indirectly impose unfair or discriminatory conditions.
Fitness Freak would like to assert that users are not locked into using Eato Keto's services
exclusively and can opt out or choose alternative food recommendation services. This ensures
consumer choice and prevents the foreclosure of competition.

ISSUE III. Whether unilateral removal of exclusive video content by Fitness Freak amount
to a violation of the Indian Competition Act?

Section 3(5) of the Competition Act recognizes collaborations and agreements that promote
efficiencies, which could include content curation and management decisions made by platform
owners. The counsel would like to state that Fitness Freak as the owner of the platform, it has the
right to manage and curate the content hosted on its platform, including the removal of specific
videos. The creators may have granted Fitness Freak the rights to host their content, but this does
not necessarily prevent Fitness Freak from exercising its discretion in managing its platform.

the case of Confederation of Real Estate Developers’ Associations of India (CREDAI) v.

Competition Commission of India & Anr9. where the Supreme Court of India held that the
7
Harshita Chawla v Whatsapp Inc. & Anr. Case No. 15 of 2020
8
Central Inland Water Transport Corporation Ltd. & Anr. vs Brojo Nath Ganguly & Anr [1986 AIR 1571]
9
Confederation of Real Estate Developers’ Associations of India (CREDAI) v. Competition Commission of India &
Anr. (2012),

13 | P a g e
mere existence of agreements or conduct that affects competition does not per se amount to anti-
competitive behavior. The effect on competition must be examined in light of its impact on
consumer welfare and economic efficiency.

the removal of certain videos was a business decision made to maintain the quality and focus of
its platform. By allowing only certain types of exercise videos that align with its strategy, Fitness
Freak aims to enhance user experience and satisfaction. The Competition Act does not prohibit
businesses from making unilateral decisions to improve the quality of their products or services,
as long as such decisions do not result in anti-competitive effects.
The Competition Act does not interfere with the freedom of contract between parties unless such
contracts result in anti-competitive effects or violate competition law principles. Section 19(3) of
the Competition Act exempts conduct resulting in the improvement of production or distribution
of goods or provision of services from anti-competitive scrutiny if it benefits consumers.

Fitness Freak assert that the removal of specific videos does not have an anti-competitive effect
on the market. Users still have access to a variety of exercise content through other platforms and
channels, and the removal of certain videos does not foreclose competition or harm consumers.
in the case of 10Google LLC v. Competition Commission of India & Ors. (2020), the Delhi
High Court ruled in favor of Google's right to delist certain websites from its search results.

3.1. No Restriction on Content Creation

Fitness Freak’s removal of the content was due to the Content not aligning with their focus on
quick results, Push-up Kabila and Soyi Thing can still create and distribute content elsewhere.
Fitness Freak doesn't restrict creators from making the content itself. Creators are free to produce
the videos and upload them elsewhere. The exclusivity clause only pertains to the Fitness Freak
platform, ensuring content is unique and users have a reason to choose their platform. Fitness
Freak, like any platform, has the right to curate content it offers. They can choose what aligns
with their brand, quality standards, and user preferences

Competition Commission of India vs. All India Brewers Association & Ors11: This case
highlights the concept of the Appreciable Adverse Effect on Competition (AAEC). The CCI
ruled that an agreement between brewers did not have an AAEC because there were enough
alternative players in the market. Similarly, Fitness Freak’s actions don't restrict competition as
other platforms exist for content creators.

ISSUE IV. Whether the act of Fitness Freak violate any provisions of the Indian
Competition Act?
10
Google LLC v. Competition Commission of India & Ors. (2020), Case No, 19/2020.

11
Competition Commission of India vs. All India Brewers Association & Ors Suo Motu Case No. 06 of 2017

14 | P a g e
Fitness Freak's introduction of the Digital PT has led to increased adoption of exercise habits
among consumers. This indicates a healthy level of competition in the market, as consumers
have more options for accessing fitness-related content and services. The Competition Act aims
to promote and sustain competition in the market, and Fitness Freak's innovative product
contributes positively to competition by providing consumers with additional choices and
encouraging other market players to innovate.

Section 19(3) of the Competition Act recognizes conduct that results in the improvement of
goods or services and benefits consumers. Fitness Freak's actions align with this provision by
enhancing the quality and diversity of fitness content available to consumers The integration of
third-party video content creators onto Fitness Freak's platform provides consumers with a wider
variety of workout options and expertise. This benefits consumers by offering them more diverse
and engaging fitness content.

Section 4 of the Competition Act prohibits abuse of dominance, which includes actions that
restrict competition or harm consumers. Fitness Freak's conduct does not meet the criteria for
abuse of dominance as it contributes to consumer welfare and does not restrict competition in the
market. Fitness Freak's market share, while significant, does not necessarily indicate dominance
in the market. The presence of other gyms and fitness content creators suggests that there is
competition in the market, and Fitness Freak's actions do not restrict competition or harm
consumers.

Section 19(3) of the Competition Act exempts conduct that results in the improvement of goods
or services from anti-competitive scrutiny if it benefits consumers. Fitness Freak's collaboration
with Eato Keto aligns with this provision by improving the service provided to consumers.
Fitness Freak's collaboration with Eato Keto for providing food recommendations based on
fitness data collected by the Digital PT demonstrates innovation and efficiency in service
provision. By leveraging data to offer personalized recommendations, Fitness Freak enhances the
value proposition of its product, thereby benefiting consumers.

Fitness Freak's actions, such as allowing third-party content creators and collaborating with Eato
Keto, are conducted transparently and in compliance with relevant laws and regulations. Fitness
Freak conducts consumer surveys and engages in collaborations openly, ensuring that consumers
are informed and protected.

PRAYER

15 | P a g e
WHEREFORE, In the light of the issues raised, arguments advanced, and authorities cited, it is
most humbly prayed before the Competition Commission of India that it may be pleased:
1. That, Fitness Freak Has Not Indulged in Anti-Competitive Conduct by Pre Loading Eato
Keto On Their Device.
2. That, Fitness Freak Has Not Abused Its Dominant Position by Sharing Data Without the
User's Consent
3. That, Fitness Freak Has Violated Not the Indian Competition Act by Removing
Exclusive Video Made for The Platform.

AND/OR
Pass any other order, that the Competition Commission of India may deem fit in the light of
justice, equity, and good conscience.
All of which is most humbly and respectfully submitted

COUNSEL FOR INFORMANT INFORMANT

16 | P a g e